Can you prolong an attack spell?

[sethbrayman]

I can't tell if the section on prolonging spells on YS259 is saying yes or no on that.  Any official word?

[Taran]

no, there are no DoTs in Dresden.

The book parcels out what you can do in each of the sections:

251 under attacks:
  - 1 shift gives attack rating
  - 2 shifts attacks a zone
  - splitting shifts lets you attack multiple enemies (spray attack)

It doesn't mention duration.

pg.252 under block:
 - 1 shift adds power to the block
 - every 2 shifts halved adds armour
 - 1 shift adds persistence
 - 2 shifts allow to cover multiple allies

252-253 under maneuvers
 - 3 shifts to make a simple maneuver or enough shifts to overcome the defending skill
 - it says you can add persistence, but that seems to conflict with the 'creating aspects' part of the rule book.  Therefore, I play spell maneuvers the same way that aspects work: if it's sticky, it lasts for the scene, unless it really, really needs magic to maintain the aspect.  Like floating people in the air or something.
 
Side Note: under aspects, you have scene aspects or targeted aspects.  I do not allow 'zone wide' maneuvers with spells because it leads to tricky situations where you can tag one aspect and instigate multiple compels with a single tag/FP.  Although, you can use a spell maneuver to put a scene aspect.  If you want to hit multiple enemies with a 'disarmed' spell, I allow spray attacks, splitting the power of the maneuver between multiple enemies.

If you wanted a DoT spell, You could spend a point of refresh on Venomous and say that you are using it as a spell.  Maybe base it off of Discipline instead of Fists.  Up to your GM.

[sethbrayman]

While the section on attacks clearly does not include shifts for persistence, the section on prolonging spells on YS259 gives a way to prolong spells that does not include adding shifts of persistence to the initial spell using its base mechanics. It works differently from how you would normally exchange shifts for persistence in a block or maneuver. It does not specify any restrictions on type of spell. How does this interact with attack spells?

I am not sure if this goes against the spirit of an attack or not, in the books a continued flamethrower effect might be cannon depending on how you interpret it through game rules. Balance wise the reduced cost of extending powerful block using this method might offset the ability to continue a powerful attack.

I'm looking for any official information from someone like a game designer, if they are on this board, or something in the text that specifically allows/disallows the prolonging of attack spells. Or perhaps a previous thread that answered this definitively. I have searched but found very little.  Thank you.

[Taran]

Persistence is mentioned in both blocks and maneuvers and it seems to be intentionally left out of attacks.  You'll also notice that the example on pg 259 gives an example of how to prolong a shield spell (block), which is in keeping with the descriptions on page 252 and 253.   It really plays havoc with action economy.  There might be some semi-official stuff on here somewhere here.  Maybe a post from Iago.   For the most part, I'm speaking from my own experience and the many, many long discussions that have happened here on this board.

For instance, you could do a power 6, weapon 5 attack with one shift of duration and then, on your next turn, prolong it for 6 exchanges.  Or you could do that with a zone-wide attack.  The problem is there are no rules on whether you use the original accuracy or if you have to re-role accuracy every single exchange.  Your table would have to house-rule something. 

There have been house-rules created to cover it and most people agree that you have to spend your action, every turn, focusing on the spell (rolling accuracy).  So, while it's just like a regular attack, at least you aren't spending mental stress on a new spell.  But, once again, this is a house-rule.

That all said, I can have a look around and see if there's something here that mentions it specifically.

Having extended attacks might make counterspelling more useful.

Anyways, welcome to the boards!

Edit:  found it:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17115.msg776018.html#msg776018

[Mr. Death]

There was a thread on this a few years ago. I pointed to this bit of the RAW as indication you could do it:

Sometimes, it behooves a wizard to maintain a
spell effect for an indefinite length of time, especially
when the effect is a block or maneuver.

Because if you can only add duration to a block or maneuver, why would you put "especially" there?

Anyway, in that thread I worked out these mechanics for it, which I never really got to playtest but it seemed like people in the thread liked it:

So how's this for a proposal:

A caster can create a multiple-exchange attack by devoting one shift of effect to each additional exchange. For each exchange that the attack is active, the caster must roll Discipline to maintain the hold on the spell, involving fallout or backlash as normal if he fails to make the difficulty equal to the spell's Weapon rating, regardless of whether he is attacking with the spell that exchange. If the caster is attacking using the spell energy, the Discipline roll will serve as the targeting roll as well.

The caster may not cast any new spells while the first is active. If the caster attempts a separate action while the spell is active, either the Discipline roll or the main action roll must be made at a penalty of -1, similarly to the supplemental action rules. The caster may convert the spell energy into a Block or Maneuver, but any change to the spell's parameters--including converting it into a zone attack or a spray attack--forfeits the spell's remaining longevity.

Example: It is just not Harry's day (but when is it ever?), and some Red Court vampires have come to say hi. Harry decides that he can't make an effective spray attack with his Discipline skill given how many vampires are after him, and he doesn't want to risk frying himself with a zone attack, so he decides to try a multiple-exchange attack. He summons up a Weapon:4 fireball, and gives it three exchanges of longevity, and rolls very well, getting a solid 7 to control, putting a big flaming hole through the first vampire. After dodging a couple strikes, he throws it at a second vampire, rolling a 4 to successfully control the energy, and singes it. Harry decides it might be a good idea to get out of dodge, and decides to devote his next turn to doing so--he decides it's more important to get out of the zone, which has a border that will stop at least some of the vampires, so he decides to make his Athletics roll at normal, and roll his Discipline from the penalty. As a result, he makes it over the border, but only rolls a 2 on Discipline, and takes two shifts of backlash to maintain his hold on the spell. The barrier stops the vampires, though, so on his next turn, Harry decides to let'em have it: He converts the spell into a Weapon:2 zone attack, and manages an Epic roll, cooking nearly all the vampires he'd left behind.

If you're looking for an official ruling, as far as I know none exists. There is a lot in the game books that is vaguely worded with no concrete answer, so it's up to your table.

[sethbrayman]

Because if you can only add duration to a block or maneuver, why would you put "especially" there?

Yes I thought the same at first, but then it says:

Normally, you’d assign shifts of power to make
the spell persist longer than an exchange.
However, this makes the lifespan of very
powerful effects depressingly short.
Alternately, you can actively funnel more
energy into an evocation to maintain it, but this
takes up your standard action for the round.

The use of the words "alternatively" and "normally" to me could indicate that there would be an original way of doing it, so not an attack. The vague wording, like you point out, is vexing

I think the thread linked as a post update by Taran is as close as I'm going to get to official errata or the like.

Edit:  found it:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17115.msg776018.html#msg776018

Thanks much!

[Taran]

@Mr. Death:  I like that rule but I maintain that, if you have to homebrew a rule to make it work, it's probably not covered by the main mechanics.

I think that text you quoted really just points to the fact that, sometimes, there are exceptions.  The game is really intended to be flexible.  There might arise a situation where having a prolonged evocation attack makes the most sense.  It's amazes me to see how many ways there are to do the exact same action.

That said, I'll point back to that comment from Iago.  I don't think persistent attacks are intended by the rules.  Although, I think persistent damage can be done well with an appropriate aspect and a compel.  Like 'on fire' or something.

[Taran]

double post

The use of the words "alternatively" and "normally" to me could indicate that there would be an original way of doing it, so not an attack. The vague wording, like you point out, is vexing

I think this is talking about extending duration in the following round and not specifically pointing at attacks.

Normally,
With 5 shifts of power you can do a 3 shift block with 2 shifts of durations

Alternatively,
you can cast a full powered 5 shift block in round 1.
In round 2, you can funnel more power into the spell and extend it for an additional 5 rounds.  You'd still have use your action to control the 5 shifts but then you don't have to worry about the spell for the next 5 exchanges.

[BearsDragon]

I've seen this more in my game with defensive spells rather than offensive. The issue is you trade duration for power.

[Mr. Death]

Thinking about this some more, an alternative might be to effectively make a scene aspect on a zone (and it only really makes sense, to me, for a zone for this purpose) where the power of the spell is its targeting value (no Weapon rating).

So if, say, you wanted to clear a room, you might create a 4-strength firestorm that'd last for three rounds as a 9-shift spell, cast it, and then whoever's in that zone endures a 4-shift attack each of those three rounds.

This would mitigate the overpoweredness of the attack roll + weapon rating combo, but I think it only works as a zone attack, as that helps mitigate its overall power (since you need to spend 2 shifts for a zone effect), creates limits to its use (you'd be reluctant to abuse it if your allies are in the zone), and lets you do other things.

Thoughts?

[narphoenix]

I don't know what RAW says, but balance wise that's a terrible idea. Wizards are already very powerful: extended duration attacks takes away one of the main things that help keep them from being terrifyingly OP, namely that they have to take stress to attack.